2016-12-08 19:04 GMT+09:00 Lisi Reisz <
lisi.reisz@gmail.com>:
> On Thursday 08 December 2016 04:19:00 EenyMeenyMinyMoa wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2016-12-08 5:25 GMT+09:00 Brian <
ad44@cityscape.co.uk>:
>>> Random script kiddy attacks are of absolutely no consequence. Annoying
>>> perhaps, but no threat whatsoever. In terms of security, changing the
>>> port number for ssh does bugger all.
>>
>> What security risk can changing the port number for ssh cause?
>
> If it does bugger all, it isn't a security risk either. "Does bugger all"
> means that it doesn't do anything whatsoever, so I take it to mean (possibly
> erroneously) that: changing the port number does not create a security risk,
> but neither does it improve security. It just introduces unnecessary further
> complication.
I see.
I thought the meaning of "bugger" as "wreck".
There are one word of which I couldn't get the meaning in the last email of Henning. But I'll put it aside.
For safer security(at least I guess), I changed the permissions of
authorized_keys
id_rsa_for_test.pub
known_hosts
into 600.
This time in the manner:
one change, test, succeed, and then next...
I could also login by ssh without password.
Cheers,
EenyMeenyMinyMoa